|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 01, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Archive through April 01, 2001
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 08:37 pm |        | Dear Jon,
As you rightly say, doctors & photographers...
who are doing their job...were also present, but its not their job to search the room for clues.
But the main point to remember, everything we read
in the 'official' version has been filtered via the Home Office(HO,HO,HO...),and in some vault is the COMPLETE file of Jack the Ripper! For Jack's
Eyes Only?
The "Cretans" were disliked by the "Greeks",and vice versa, so if a "Greek" said it...never mind.
The truth, however,
I am a number, (I2M3!)
Rosemary |
Author: Jon
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 08:42 pm | | Ed
I'm not sure if you'll agree with me here, but as it is suggested that the act of strangling is part of the thrill for the killer, and possibly where he got his jollies......then what jollies would be had by strangling someone who had been chloroformed?
As there is no actual evidence of chloroform but there is, albiet little, evidence of strangling, choking or otherwise respiratory restrictions, I think we have to decide on one or the other.....not both.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 11:15 pm | | G'day Jon,
The police did hold back the information that Mary Kelly's heart, had been removed and taken away by her killer.
Let me dig out the information on that.....
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 11:41 pm | | G'day jon,
I think I read in Bruce Paley's book that the information was not told to the public because it was considered too shocking.
Caroline Morris reckons that they kept this info from the public, to prevent a repeat of what happened with the Lusk kidney.
A Dr. Gabe 'leaked' the info to the newspapers, then changed his story the next day.
The 'Times' and the 'Daily Telegraph' leaked the story that 'a portion of bodily organs was missing'.
If a weapon was found in the room, but the info was kept secret, I reckon that someone would have 'leaked' the story!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 09:44 pm | | Hi Leanne
In a report in The Sunday Times, Nov 11, we are told that Dr Phillips and Dr MacDonald joined the police at Millers Court and sieved the ashes in the grate, they did not say what they were looking for.
If it was remains of articles, they didnt need the Doctors, so we might be allowed to presume they were looking for remains of human organs....a heart?
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 07:48 am | | Sorry, I have been busy and unable to get to the boards. Concerning the possibility that these women had been strangled, I have seen the effects of strangulation on the throat and they are unmistakable, this is not strangulation. If this was a lone killer, and his plan was to strangle Annie, he must have had enormous confidence in his ability to suppress the potential of both her adrenaline filled struggles and her screams. He had little room to make any mistakes in the yard adjoining 29, a house where 17 people were sleeping. These men used the same routine for each of the murders. At the first meeting one of them treated the victim very well(hence earlier on the day of their deaths, the women were all 'in the money' and thus extremely drunk. Polly said; I'v earned my doss money three times over and spent it all on drink') He then arranged to meet them again for some sort of venture, offering them a reward to do him a big favor, probably nothing to do with sex and this is how they managed to drop the guards of these experienced prostitutes.
Let's imagine, he said to Annie, if you are interested in doing me a favor, meet me again in Hanbury Street at 0500, I will pay you well because you will be doing me a big favor! On her arrival, in anticipation he said, will you? Annie's reply, of course was; Yes!
He took her into the backyard on the pretext of collecting something for the venture, his accomplice waited behind the back door.
This man took Annie from the rear as she entered the yard, covering her face with a chloroform filled mask,the three fingers from his right hand causing the three scratches on the left jaw, the base of his thumb and the tip causing the bruising on the right.
Annie was then bundled behind the back door.
There are many reasons to think two murderers exist!
Firstly, if you look at the records concerning Annie's discovery, and then carefully compare the reports to ensure that the dialog is correct, you will notice that her feet were pointing directly at the woodshed at the bottom of the yard.(it took me ages to confirm this, look on htth://www. casebook.org/victims html? show all (The text opposite the picture of the backyard in Hanbury Street).
The summary is correct!( it's taken from Wynne Baxter, it is misquoted in several places but several comparisons prove it correct)
Now, as I have mentioned before, the position of her feet, planter extension) occurs for a combination of two reasons: The limbs are floppy because the person is full of drugs or alcohol, then two people arrive to move them because they are causing some sort of obstruction.
Where I work, the securuty men normally pick the person up, one man slips his arms under the offenders armpits then grips over the shoulders. The other man lifts the dress (if it's a woman) and grips behind and under the knee. On lifting the offender, gravity pulls their toes down and the heel naturally comes up as a result. You would have to work in an accident and emergency dept for sometime to notice this. Thus her feet were pointing down. Ask someone to pretend to collapse, then look at the position of the feet;100 degree angles.
Secondly, Annie had her left arm over the left breast, why?.
The blood spots on Annie's left arm and the fence indicate that the arm was actually over her left breast when he severed the carotid artery. I believe it arrived there in this fashion: as she became unconscious they moved her down from the back wall to give themselves room to work. The man moving the upper torso, slid his hands under her armpits and then up onto the shoulder, this forced both Annie's arms onto her chest. On putting her down the right arm fell off! Thus when they severed the carotid artery the spurt of blood landed on the arm and then the fence. Remember chloroform depresses the cardiac muscle therefore the pressure would be less.
Thirdly,I am not happy about position of the skirt; the hemline was on her thighs. On her discovery, Annie's small intestine trailed out from her abdominal cavity, and then up, resting above her right shoulder. Unless it first went down to her thighs, under the hemline of the skirt and then up to the right shoulder, the killer must have accessed the abdomen via an opening above the waist of the skirt. I view that he could not have worked to the extent that he did, cutting from the lower abdomen up to the sternum by lifting the hem of the long Victorian dress. So why was the dress on her thighs? Could it be to access the pocket found under the dress? I view not! And I don't belive that the combs and the muslin came from the pocket under her dress. This was a secret pocket, it was there to hide money in case of muggers, or in case a client decided to take his money back. The Ripper would have cut the whole pocket off to examine any contents, instead of fiddling about tearing it under her dress. I would be suspicious about any one working at the mortuary concerning the rip in this pocket! I think the dress was up because the man lifting the legs first raised the dress to grip under her knees. The most important aspect in examining the hatchet on the table is in the area where the shaft meets the head.Best wishes ED> |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 07:50 am | | | PS,this is actually leading up to why I think Mary was lifted by two people.ED> i'm off to work now. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 08:06 pm | | Dear Ed,
I think your 'hatchet' may well be the part of a silhouette of a casement window cast by the sunlight? Someone posted a diagram of a similar
effect...was it Jon?
On the other hand, that oddly shaped 'knife' thing
seems to suggest some dimensionality. Surely, the cutting edge of the average knife would find difficulty when it came to 'flaying' skin? Could
Jack have used a number of knives in this instance?
Rosemary |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 07:22 am | | If we reflect on the position of Annie, and then look forward to the position of Mary Kelly, now examine the position of Martha Tabram; the first in this series of killings. The man who discovered Martha's body was convinced that she was actually having sex at the time of her murder. Why?
Because her dress was up and the legs were slumped out and open at the knee. The doctor refuted this, claiming that 'connection had definitely not taken place'. Then we discover that she had 39 stab wounds, 37 were inflicted by a right handed-man, and 2 from a left handed-man, more importantly he used a different blade. Now we must begin to suspect that there were two killers. But why overkill her and then inflict those extra two wounds, could this be symbolic of 'were in this thing together'! Sorry, I have to go now, Rosemary I will write tonight or tomorrow, it is a hatchet,
to begin with, the cuts on the upper left arm were chopped out, the laceration on the right calf is too wide to have been made with a knife, I have seen hundreds of knife wounds. It fits exactly with the shape of the tip of the hatchet on the table. Look at the shaft of the hatchet, now compare it with Mary's right shaft of femur, there is nothing as straight as the shaft on the table in the abdominal cavity, unless it was bone!
There is also a slipper on the table and this is more important, this inicates that she opened the door wearing slippers, the attack took place and Mary was rendered unconisious, the killers then threw her on the bed. Whilst chopping at the leg he pulled this slipper off and threw it on the table where he had thrown the skin flaps and intestines! Best wishes ED. |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 02:13 pm | | Hi Ed,
The bit about Tabram having been stabbed by two different men seems to be some sort of twisting of the doctor's report that she was apparantly stabbed by at least two different weapons, an ordinary pen-knife 38 times, a sword, bayonet or dagger once,; this wound being enough alone to have caused almost instant death.
Still, the 'two-man' theory is, IMHO, not to be wholy discarded, which may (or may not!) increase the difficulty of subscribing this unfortunant woman to one of Jack's, but it were also possible for one man with e.g. a dagger in the left, a penknife in the right, to have caused such wounds. The soldier theory, although nowadays almost completely discredited, is in my mind still a possibility.
I note that I once promised Yaz (old boarders know!) not to dispute Tabram/Jack, so I write here only that Tabram COULD have been a ripper victim, nothing rules him out.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 03:22 pm | | Bob Court, I have just got back into town, so sorry for the delay in responding to your earlier post.
We both seem to be saying very similar things but are on opposite sides of the see-saw. My point is that Dr Bond has said some rather peculiar things which don't make much sense. You, however, seem to agree with him on certain points.
I can't quite understand what you mean by saying that, "I raise my eyebrows about the claim you suggest that RM can set in within 2 hours of death.". Do you mean in this particular case or are you saying that Rigor does not "generally" begin 2 to 4 hours after death, that this is an impossibility? If you are saying this, there are several Forensic Pathologists who are apparently wrong as well as several Pathology textbooks. I also wonder about your observation that a light meal of fish and chips would take from 3 to 4 hours to become only partially digested as Dr Bond has strangely claimed.
I am aware of the problems with both Rigor and digestion as methods of establishing the time of death, but I am trying to point out that, yes, the information given by Dr Bond does not exclude a time of death of around 4:00 a.m. but it also does not exclude a time of death in the mid morning, roughly 9:00 to 10:00 a.m., as you have yourself have stated. This doubt as to the real time of death seems to be corroborated by three different witnesses, the question now seems to be, do we still dismiss these witnesses off hand or do they become much more relevant?
I am not sure what "other points tend to indicate that Maxwell was wrong" but I do wonder at your slight inaccuracies regarding her testimony. The last time Caroline Maxwell saw Mary Kelly alive was around 8:45 a.m. (This by her inquest testimony rather than her police interview), and at roughly 8:30 a.m. Kelly had told Maxwell that she had vomited in the road. This would mean that she had been sick sometime before 8:30, at what time we cannot say but it would have been any time before that. One scenario that has already been proposed on these boards is that Kelly could have vomited and then, feeling slightly better and a little hungry, went over to the Britannia, or some other place, for a light meal. Did this happen? I cannot say. Could this have happened? Of course it can't be ruled out.
In the end we can debate this for ever, both agreeing with what the other is saying only disagreeing with what this might mean.
I am beginning to think that E. Carter, the modern day Larkins, is someones idea of a joke. How else do you explain someone this earnest, this sure that he knows all the answers but who is so consistently wrong about the facts. Is he, (or she) just pulling our collective legs?, something that seems to be happening more and more of late, or does he, (or she) really believe in what they say?
Dr Phillips, who examined the body (somehow this becomes unimportant), the Coroner, Wynne Baxter, the editors of the Lancet, Divisional Police Surgeon Dr Matthew Brownfield and, in more recent times, Professor Francis Camps (one of the greatest Forensic Pathologists of our day), John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood of the FBI, as well as many other modern experts in the field have all stated that the medical evidence shows that the Ripper first strangled his victims, if not to death, then at least to unconsciousness. They, apparently, are all wrong because E. Carter has, "seen the effects of strangulation on the throat and they are unmistakable, this is not strangulation." Surely he, (or she) is just kidding.
Somehow a simple orientation of the body, "The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard." becomes a vital clue of "planter extension", in which the toes are pointed unnaturally downward as the body lies on the ground. Feet towards the shed mysteriously becomes toes pointed towards the shed. In fact Dr Phillips went on to state, "...the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards." This, thus negates any suggestion of "planter extension" as the feet were resting flat on the ground.
E. Carter also tells us, "I am not happy about position of the skirt; the hemline was on her thighs." I am not happy with this either as Dr Phillips tells us that "Her dress was pulled above her knees exposing the lower part of the abdomen.", thus the skirt was above the thighs. This is a minor point, much like Carters assertion that Polly Nichols was wearing flannel drawers when she was killed, but it proves a certain amount of licence with the facts. We don't see evidence to back up his absurd claims only a vivid imagination at work.
Wolf. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 05:16 pm | | I'm not a person who will accept readily that Mary was murdered between 0:9.00 and 10:00 o'clock. I believe the 0:4.00 death cry. BUT, I have to admit, after the way the Ripper committed the Chapman and Eddowes murders, then I suppose the time of between 9 and 10 is possible,--if forensics agree,- I wouldn't know about that side of things. I would have thought though that there would be a difference,quite a difference, between a body killed at 0:4.00, and one killed 5 or 6hrs later, surely a doctor couldn't be that mistaken.
It takes away a lot of the thought that he had time unlimited with the body to do his mutilations
He must have been constantly looking over his shoulder at that window making sure the overcoat was still in place, and no one watching.
I'm of the belief the murder was committed at around 0:4.00, and he spent some time arranging and admiring his work afterwards, those footsteps heard leaving the Court at about 0:6.00 could have been his!. I just can't believe he rushed this job.
Rick |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 05:20 pm | | | Bob, I have just returned home from work and I need some blinkers and ear muffs as I have to be up early tomorrow, I will get back to you, I have read your work on the casebook. By the way. Dress brown ulster,7large brass butttons(figure of a female riding a horse and man at side theron),brown lindsey frock, grey wollen petticoat, flannel drawers, white chest flannel, brown stays,black ribbed wollen stockings, men's spring sided boots, cut on uppers, tips on heels, black straw bonnet, trimmed with black velvet. If you can't make it to the records office try The Final Soulution'. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:35 pm | | Dear Ed,
A correction to my last post, it was Steve's
diagrams I was referring you to regarding the light source which creates the 'hatchet' effect via the smaller window. A less dramatic impact!
A hatchet would not 'flow' over the edge of the table...light gives that effect, otherwise the seeming overhang of the head of the hatchet would
be delineated by shadow which it clearly does not.
Chardin :-)
Rosemary |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:51 am | | Dress:
Brown ulster, seven large buttons, horse & man standing by side thereon, linsey frock, brown stays, blue ribbed woolen stockings, straw bonnet.
Official police descriptive form of what Polly Nichols was wearing from the The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook.
"Inspector Spratling, continuing, said the clothes, which were lying in a heap in the yard, consisted of a reddish-brown ulster, with seven large brass buttons, and a brown dress, which looked new. There were also a woollen and a flannel petticoat, belonging to the workhouse."
the Daily Telegraph Tuesday, 4 September 1888.
"Witness, continuing his evidence, stated he again went to the mortuary and made an examination of the clothing taken off the deceased. The principle parts of the clothing consisted of a reddish ulster, somewhat the worse for wear, a new brown linsey dress, two flannel petticoats, having the marks of the Lambeth Workhouse on them, and a pair of stays..."
the Times, 4 September 1888.
Wolf. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 11:27 am | | Bob, I want to get a few things cleared up, then I anyone is interested I will finish explaining why I believe there were two killers. The most readily available information that notes doctor Killeen's opinion as to wether the killers used left and, or right hand, is probably Phillip Sugdens book, page 17, the last paragraph. Secondly, as you will note in the above post, Polly was indeed wearing flannel drawers, the most readily accessed source to confirm this is probably 'the final solution' by Stephen Knight. The most important point concerning diagnosis is not who they were but what they have seen and experienced and more importantly, when they are prepared to admit uncertainty! One certain sign of strangulation is a fractured of the hyoid bone, if the killer was indeed in a frenzy and he strangled these women single-handed, he would have exerted enough pressure to fracture the hyoid; a fracture always associated with manual strangulation. Not to mention a deep purple mark travelling around the front of the neck!
One so called psychological profiler who has happily accepted the credit for outlining and helping to catch a certain criminal, was later proved wrong in almost every thing he said after a criminal accomplice was caught.(and after much writing and basking in the limelight which people believe hook line and sinker!)
Read the 'Anatomy of Motive' Douglas John, pocket books 1999, I worked in the field of psychiatry and psychology for nearly seven years, much is overhyped and absolute rubbish!
I want to see the evidence,behind the diagnosis of strangulation who said what and when and what was it based on! Show me the signs of strangulation in these women. Baxter and Phillips were baffled, they had to say something! Rosemary, I think you are looking at the wrong thing, it's almost impossible to make a quick diagnosis you will require several photos and patience. The hatchet does not reach the edge of the table. Best wishes ED> |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:17 pm | | Ed,
There's a good reason why the doctors did find a bruise going along the front of the victims throats. Take a guess what that reason is. As to the hyboid bone (if there is such a thing), it probably would not have been disturbed had the Ripper used a ligature. Personally, I am not convinced that he did use a ligature, but it is possible. The 'two killers' theory is pretty played out, like the 'Jill the Ripper' theory. Nice try, though.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 12:15 am | | Although I have always accepted some type of respiratory restriction (strangling, choking), I am also aware there has never been any firm evidence of such taking place.
Tabram's swollen tongue, puffed features, Chapman's clenched fist, etc are the only evidence we have to support strangling. There was no bruising around the neck, only around the jawline, where we would expect to see bruising, or at least none recorded in medical testimony. But if bruising across the front of the throat was present, it may have been obscured by the laserations.
And the hyoid bone is found between the base of the tongue and the larynx, this is normally easily damaged and is a certain giveaway to indicate the act of strangling took place.
Its a shame the Doctors never made mention of this small 'U' shaped clue.
20 yrs before the Ripper murders took place a craze was sweeping the big cities, garroting, and we can even see how this craze affected contemporary fashions. Some newspapers carried add's displaying the latest "absolute insurance against this abominable craze", in the form of a rigid basket worn over the head and fastened under the arms and over the shoulders. Though no evidence of a ligature being used on the Ripper victims is evident, at least in those days they were very well aquainted with the practice of garroting, possibly even by sleeper hold.
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 08:10 am | | Tom and Jon, if you arrived in an accident and emergency department suffering a stab wound it would be very important to establish if the you had been stabbed by a man or a woman, but only someone of experience would want to know this. Because, or she would understand from their experience that women normally stab in a frenzy, holding the knife with the blade down like a dagger, men tend to hold the knife the other way around with the blade slightly upward and stab forward in a more calculated fashion. Though all stab wounds are serious, initially it is important to begin to establish the direction of the blade, to determine the organs involved.
Sorry, somethings come up and I have to go, I will carry on when I get back , best wishes ED |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 08:23 am | | Ed
Add to that the fact that very masculine women, who act, look & dress in a masculine fashion hold a knife upwards, (as you say) like a man. Yet effeminate men, with a dainty almost feminine manner will hold it in a dagger like fashion.
So, how does that muddy the waters?
Also, a person (male or female) when confronted, in a threatening manner, face to face by another person will normally hold the knife upwards in a defensive fashion.
Yet, a person, when creaping up silently behind another will normally hold the weapon downward in a dagger like fashion.....
Truth is, how a weapon was held is no indication as to the sex of the murderer.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 10:01 am | | I don't think at all that JtR was homosexual. I think he was heterosexual, but with a touch of homocidal insanity in his make-up that could be unconsciously kept in check, so long as life didn't impose too many problems and stress on him.If it did impose certain problems now and again, he would get irrational, and could have found himself kind of balanced between finding a sensible way out of his predicament, or going overboard and taking his insane solution to the problem. The murders show that his solution to the problem that caused him to lash out and kill, wasn't working, each murder was more bloodthirsty than the last! To me, that shows frustration, I think that he was thinking his message, (if he had one) wasn't getting through, so each murder was more spectacular than the last.
Sexual insanity is a real can of worms, there are so many versions,I think there's a good chance that he was impotent, none of the victims had been "penetrated", but that doesn't make him "homo", or that he got his thrill from killing and cutting them, maybe that wasn't his reason or message at all.
We, all of us , have our theories---including no suspect, and we won't be budged,--I'm one of them.
I believe Bruce Paley's theory, that it was Barnett, except that I don't believe Stride was a Ripper victim, and I don't believe he ever wrote anything on walls or paper. I'm also of the belief that the Ripper Saga can be put down to a 30yr old Eastender falling hard for an Eastend prostitute,-- but he'd misread her personality,--she was on the make and self-centred. When she wanted to end it, he wouldn't let go, he could see it coming and it caused the death of 3 or 4 women in his trying to avert it. The first three died to keep Mary off the streets, Mary died because on the evening of Nov the 8th she got it through to him in a cruel, quiet, and not uncertain way, "it was over"--he couldn't accept it!. It was a backstreet love affair that ended in tragedy. Even if you can't accept that Barnett killed the first three or four, there's certainly reason to suspect him of Mary's murder, she really gave him plenty of reason to kill her--if he was of the state of mind I suspect he was, and he made it look like his previous Ripper killings to turn suspicion away from himself, if he hadn't done that, if he had just cut her throat,or strangled her, then, he really would have set himself up as No1 suspect that the police would not leave alone, especially after their break-up and rows.
That's my theory on the matter, I don't expect to convert anyone, but then again, I don't think I can be converted, unless something really good comes along.
Regards to All, Rick
P.S. yes Jack, it is Leather apron I'm trying to contact |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 10:12 am | | Dear Jon,
Besides those variants...or because of those variants...we must take into account whether it is/is not premeditated, i.e., controlled attack
(a la commando), or a desperate defensive attack
(fear, andrenaline).Modus operandi can indicate
(strength, skill,knowledge, etc.) the sex of an offender, the method of delivery is no more than a confirmatory indicator - in this instance?
Rosemary |
Author: R Court
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 05:29 pm | | Hi Wolf,
To directly answer you about RM and TOD, my raising of eyebrows concerning the onset of RM after, or within, two hours of death is correct. It is the absolute, hardly acceptable minimal time, even when taking into account e.g. body temperatur and other circumstances as it must have been with Kelly.
We know that e.g. body temperatur plays an enormous role, but if we were to take a TOD at ca. 4.00 a.m., and accept that Bond's claim that RM was just setting in at 2.00 p.m. was correct, that means a time span of ca. 8 hours must have passed. Now, if RM hat actually set in after, say, three hours, then at 2.00 p.m. Mary (oops!, or what was left of the poor girl!) must have been as stiff as a board, if you will pardon my expression. I do not believe that Bond, or anyone else, could have mistaken that condition.
As you see, a guaranteed time-span of ca. 2 hours between TOD and onset of RM would, in Mary's case, prove beyond doubt that she had been murdered more than an hour after being found by Bowyer! Even a longer time span, say 4 hours, would eliminate the 4.00 a.m. theory completely, were it true. Nice, but not the case.
About the food, I have explained myself there badly. Now, if Phillips found actual 'Fish and Potatoes' in the stomach area, then Mary was killed not four hours, or even two hours, after the meal. The reason is that potato rapidly dissolves when in contact with digestive juices and usually, with a reasonably normal stomach condition, is completely disorbed within the hour. Indeed, certain colleagues here hold a time of less than half-an-hour for realistic.
The 4 hours mentioned by Bond is apparantly coupled with the normal emptying of the stomach itself in ca. 4 hours, he meaning thus that if food is to be found in the stomach, then the meal was taken not more than about 4 hours before the digestive process stopped, i.e. death. He omits to say in what condition the potato was in, so I assume it was clearly to be recognised and thus the 4 hour bit is, in my mind, not tenable.
Such a scenario would tend to support your example suggestion that Mary could have eaten after having vomited early mornings, but is open to the exception that this is so dependant on the stomach condition, alchohol playing a large part, that we may just as well consider a consumption at, say, 12.00 midnight and death at 4.00 a.m.
I do not suggest either way about C. Maxwell. She may have been a liar, mistaken, or telling the truth. I don't know and can form no opinion.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 06:31 am | | Jon, sorry about this delay, I have been tied up. In reality, seldom will anyone attack holding the knife blade down. However I do remember the posters advertising the 'Pink Panther' films depicting a spy on tip toes with the collar up and holding the knife like a dagger above his head. The fact is that unless you wanted to stab the victim in the shoulders or the top of the head, it's sensible to hold the blade in front of the thumb and index finger. Men usually hold the blade like this because they are carrying the knife about the person at the time of the attack. Therefore it's natural take the knife out holding the handle with the blade between the thumb and index finger. Where as, in my experience, women seldom carry a knife they attack someone on impulse, normally due to years of physical, and, or emotional abuse, then finally snapping and grabbing the knife. Most women, unaware that they were going to attack, saw a knife on the kitchen table grabbed it in anger and attacked in a frenzy. There was no time to think, and it is more natural to grab a knife lying on it's side with the blade pointing downwards. You could say 'blade down' indicates that the knife was 'picked up' not carried, and therefore the attack was impulsive. This is an example of the cause and effect,I will come back to both frenzy and the position of the knife on discussing Stride and Kelly, have to go to work now.
Best wishes ED> P>S Rosemary, if you have Stephen Knights Book 'The Final Solution' examine the picture of Kelly in this first, aspects of the hatchet can be seen more clearly. Though he may well have neglected the facts, he was the first to access the files and much of his 'run of the mill' research is very accurate.Best wishes ED. P.S He also shows the original copy of the graffiti, compare it to other copies, for example the one Jon showed. Look at the word : be. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 02:07 pm | | Hi Bob.
Regarding the onset of Rigor, 2 hours seems to be the most accepted minimal time, not hardly accepted, and I obviously don't propose it in this case, but, I did mention 2 hours out of context and thus may have caused some confusion. I was told by one senior forensic pathologist, a man with over 30 years of experience, that, from the medical evidence, death could have taken place anywhere from 2 to 6 hours from when the body had been examined. This was the quote that I had used. He, as well as several others, had been given all the facts regarding the murder, where the body was found, dimensions of the room, temperature and weather conditions on the day etc. but they had not been given times nor any police or eyewitness accounts, purely the limited medical evidence. It is therefore reasonable to assume, based on this opinion, that this doctor would agree with a time of death at around 8:00 a.m..
Doctor Bond said some strange things in his report to Anderson, that the time it takes for Rigor Mortis to commence is wide and varied is, obviously, perfectly true, but, Bond was saying that the time varies within a 6 to 12 hour time span. This is not an accurate statement and stems, in my mind, from the limited understanding of the processes of Rigor in Victorian medicine, or perhaps, to put it bluntly, merely Dr Bonds limited understanding.
I see, Bob, that you have defended the second strange passage in Bonds report, that of the time it takes for a light meal of fish and chips to digest. It is all very well that you suggest that, "he meaning thus that if food is to be found in the stomach, then the meal was taken not more than about 4 hours before the digestive process stopped, i.e. death.", but this is not what Bond had written nor, apparently, had meant. Bond wrote, "...the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines....the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken..." Bond is saying that the partially digested food pointed to the digestive system being interrupted by death, 3 to 4 hours after the food had been taken, or, simply, that Kellys death had occurred 3 to 4 hours after she had eaten. Bonds knowledge of digestion seems as weak as his knowledge of RM.
Now here's the discussion that we have all been waiting for, something that I like to call The Mystery of Polly Nichols Flannel Drawers. Mr. Carter has claimed that Polly Nichols was wearing flannel drawers when she was murdered, this is not true. He tells us that this bit of information lies in the files of the Public Records Office in Kew and that we should try to look there, apparently as he did. Can't get to Kew? Then look in Stephen Knights book, Jack the Ripper, The Final Solution. Now the fact that Carter is using Knight as a reference should make people a bit nervous but, be that as it may, a check of The Final Solution reveals that Carter is correct, flannel drawers are listed in Inspector Spartlings' official report on the murder of Polly Nichols, dated 31 August 1888. In fact, a quick comparison of the Knight book and the list of Nichols clothes that Carter posted last week shows that they are identical so as to show that Carter was using Knights book for the list rather than a copy of the original report from Kew. If Mr. Carter had actually seen the original report he would know that Stephen Knight had got it wrong.
Here is what Inspector Spratling actually wrote:
"dress, brown ulster, 7 large brass buttons, (figure of a female riding a horse and a man at side thereon), brown linsey frock grey woollen petticoat, flannel do, white chest flannel, brown stays, white chemise, black ribbed woollen stockings, mans S.S. boots, cut on uppers, tips on heels, black straw bonnet, trimmed black velvet."
The relevant part being,
Knight/Carter: "...grey wollen petticoat, flannel drawers..."
Spratling: "...grey woollen petticoat, flannel do..."
The word "do" is not the short form of drawers, as perhaps Knight thought but is in fact the short form for the word "ditto" and thus the meaning here is clear: grey woollen petticoat, flannel petticoat. Polly Nichols was not wearing flannel drawers.
Wolf. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 04:11 pm | | "A Thief in Female Attire".
"A German, passing by the name of Maria Brown, was brought before the Magistrates at Manchester a few days ago, on suspicion of pickpocketing on the omnibuses, for nearly two months. Dressed as a woman and his make-up so good that ninety-nine persons out of a hundred would not be able to tell his sex. He was remanded but subsequently discharged." (Wakefield Journal & Express, Sept 7,
1855) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 07:22 pm | | Dear Ed,
Here is a snippet from, Dialectica Criminalogica on the transference of soporific drugs:
"Robbery Spree of Girl with Knockout Kisses."
22 yr old woman arrested in the hunt for the "kissing bandit",who preyed on visitors to the gambling resort of Atlantic City, New Jersey,
USA. Miss Santos, who posed as a prostitute, arrested after annonymous tip-off, faces three charges of "reckless endangerment" and three of robbery. Capt Dooley, of the Atlantic City Police
said:"The victims tell us that when they were kissing her she tried to transfer something from her mouth to theirs, some sort of powder. After that of course they were rendered unconscious." However, a search of Santos's apartment revealed nothing to suggest the method of transfer that she used-without knocking herself out in the process. Dooley spoke of cases of call-girls using drugs to overpower men, but not where a drug passed by a kiss. "In this game you never cease to be amazed at what some people will get up to to make a quick buck (sic)""
(Daily Express, March 6th,1985) |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 09:54 pm | | Hi Wolf,
I will just have to disagree with your senior forensic pathologist, then, concerning the two hours being minimum or hardly acceptable. An up to six-hour period would place, as you state, TOD at after ca. 8.00 a.m., refuting the 4.00 a.m. theory. Two hours is not possible for the reason outlined above. I have an open mind on the matter otherwise.
About the food, I completely disagree with Bond, not support him. His claim that food in the stomach would indicate death took place 3-4 hours after eating would mean that the food was almost completely reduced by the digestive processes. In this state he would not have been able to claim that he had found 'fish and potatoes'.
Indeed, as I wrote earlier, the finding of identifiable partly digested potato indicates a time period of under two hours. Murderers have been caught because of this fact, claims that the victim having left home some time after a meal being proved to be lies due to the state of the food in the stomach.
I wrote that Bond 'meant', because of the finding of food, that TOD was as he was reported. This cannot be. Still, Bond was an expirienced medical man, not some quack. I suspect that we tend to pay too much to his reported words, as indeed we tend to with others. If he did find only partly digested potato in her stomach, though, she did not die 3-4 hours after eating.
This fact has puzzled me for a long time, to be honest. If the reported food finding is true, Mary died shortly after eating. At 4. am she must have eaten after 2. a.m., at ca. 8.a.m. after 6, etc. I wonder if the RM-evidence is leading us astray. Could it be that the estimate of RM in Mary was wildly wrong because of the ripped-up state of the body? I would tend to disagree with such a theory, but I have seen much wilder truths in my professional years.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 05:07 am | | | Rosemary, your first post is very relevant, it proves that you cannot take what you see for granted! If you look at the lesser scrutinized unbiased evidence from Brown and Fanny Mortimer. I think we get a better picture of what actually happened in Berner Street before Stride's murder. For once lets forget what Swartz said, because he was supposed to see it anyway! Both Fanny and Brown said there was a couple on the corner of Fairclought and Berner Street, Brown said that his arm was up above her head (conveniently hiding her face)Mortimer said that the couple must have been there both before and after the murder took place, therefore they were on the corner the whole time that she stood at her street door. In this case Leon Goldstien must have passed them on his way to 22 Christian Street. Who were they? Did they also hear the same measured tramp of a policeman that Fanny heard? A couple were also mentioned in Dorset Street before Mary Kelly's murder! keeping watch? Best Wishes ED. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 05:20 am | | Dear All,
FRENCH CONNECTION. Does anyone have any evidence to support this claim...that Mary Kelly went to France ? :-)
Upan atem!
Rosemary |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 05:26 am | | | By the way, there is also a good inventory of Polly's clothing here in the casebook, look at'victims it's either page 3 or 4'. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 07:52 am | | Hi Rosy,
Were any French letters found anywhere?
All right, I'm going...
Lots of love,
Caz |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Rosemary, your second post is also very interesting but I had no time to reply to it yesterday.
Today, midazolam is probably the most refined sedative, this benzodiazapine is so effective that displaced limb fractures and dislocations can be repositioned whilst the patient is under the effects. Unfortunaltely, however, unscrupulous men have also used this to render women unconsious before raping them. If Mr unscrupulous person, had first taken the antidote called (Anexate),he could pass it from his mouth to the victims and remain absolutely alert. And of course a woman could do the same.
I have looked at several methods the Whitechapel killers could have employed to knock these women out, and now, I have no doubt they used chloroform.
During the cardiac cycle deoxygenated blood is collected from the lower body via the inferior vena-cava, and from the upper body via the superior vena-cava. The combined blood enters the upper right atrium of the heart, then travels into the lower left ventricle before being pumped to the lungs for oxygenation. Here, the blood picks up oxygen then travels via four pulmonary veins to the left side of the heart, into the upper left atrium then down into the lower left ventricle. Then, via the aorta, the heart pumps oxygenated blood around the body to the cells. If someone has been asphyxiated, venous congestion in the superiour vena-cava would occur, this is a backlog of blood and results pressure causing swelling to the face tongue and eyelids. It also bursts the smaller veins in the face (petechial bruising) and in the eyes (sub conjunctiva haemorrhage).
If the women had been strangled, add to the above signs: surgical emphysema in the tissues around the neck and a fractured of the hyoid bone, one would have also expected to see bruising on the neck, and in both, strangulation and asphyxiation) signs of struggle because it takes quite a while.
Tissue bruising is caused by a combination of trauma and by pressure within the venous system created as the heart pumps.
Bruising does not occur in Post mortem trauma therefore we know that the women were alive when the facial bruises were inflicted. The facial bruising tells us that someone forced something over the mouth and nose when they were alive. The swollen tongue that it was long enough to cause a small degree of venous congestion. However, the force could not have been strong enough or long enough to asphyxiate or strangle them because the other appropriate signs did not occur. Some sort of drug held over the face for a short period must be strongly indicated. I will finish this tomorrow. Best Wishes ED |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Dear Ed,
I think most Posters would concur when I say...
wow! That's a pretty lucid scenario you paint, but it's far removed from your extracurricular alchemical hypothesis re, the Goulston St graffiti
Ed.
If I may put it thus, one side of the transformational equation makes emminent sense...
the other side has still some way to go to convince the more 'hard nose' Rips of it's likelihood...but time on your side, yet. Tom Sleman is hoping to beat both you and Ivor to the finishing line. I am agog with excitement! But have no illusions...that may only be Jack's dust!
Rosemary |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 09:24 am | | G'day Ed,
I've just read some up about 'Chloroform' and I am starting to think that it may have been used. For those who may not know:
Chloroform was first used as an anesthetic in 1847 and it became popular in Britain in 1853, when John Snow used it on Queen Victoria during childbirth.
Snow used it on a folded handkerchief, in the shape of a cone. It would work much faster if the 'patient' were intoxicated!
Its use stopped in the medical profession, in the early 20th century, because it proved toxic.
Jack may have learned of its use, as a medical practicioner, or he may have just read or heard about it.
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 09:58 am | | | Well, duh! Why didn't I think of that. Strangulation would have caused extensive bruising of the neck. There is one possibility, however. The subsequent slashing of the throat could have caused two possible events. 1. Extensive extravasation (is that the word?) of blood into the tissues surrounding the cut(s) thus obscuring the previous bruises. 2. A bruise is a leakage of blood into surrounding tissues due to rupture of capillaries from trauma. The cuts might have released that blood? (I'm not a medical person. I may be way off base here.) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 10:11 am | | G'day All,
The methods of detecting 'chloroform' in human blood and tissues are not very reliable because it is rapidly eliminated from the body!
LEANNE! |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 06:24 pm | | Rosemary, In his excellent book ' The complete history of jack the Ripper' The author, Phillip Sugden asks these questions(one can almost feel his total frustration in asking)
He asks: If the bruising under and over Elizabeth's clavicles came about because the killer forced her down or threw her down, (as Dr Blackwell suggests) ,why was there no signs of a struggle at the crime scene? Why did no one hear her cries? And why did she die still holding on to her packet of cachous?
Chloroform is a sickly sweet smelling and tasting volatile liquid-gas, it's used for anesthesia by inhailation from a mask or the like. As I have mentioned, if this was the substance used to render Polly and Annie unconsious, the act of forcing the mask over the face would account for the facial bruising. Chloroform is used undiluted, it's absorbtion through the alviolar membranes sited at the terminal ends of the bronchial tree, blocks the diffussion of oxygen and carbondioxide. Thus overdose consequently causes venous congestion, and this accounts for the swollen tongue. Chloroform frequently causes a convulsion; of which tongue biting is a commonplace side effect thus accounting for the lacerations on Polly and Annie's tongues.
Analogically, it is part of a group called bromines, infact Chambers Dictionary describes Bromoform as a substance analogous to chloroform. Bromines have been used to fix photographs to newspaper for many years. Therefore I was not surprised to find that one of the women had been discovered in the yard of an anarchist newspaper and with a packet of sweets in her hand!
Swartz report concerning the attack on Liz Stride reveals to us how Liz would begin to deal with a fairly common every day occurrance; a mild attack from a drunk on a prostitute. (Liz had survived at least two attacks from Michael Kidney, and tried to take him to court twice!) Liz instinctivley screamed three times, not loudly, but loud enought to be heard by Swartz who then crossed to the other side of the road. Swartz walked on passed Liz and this man, then he heard them quarrelling, this tells us that Liz was capable of becoming more robust in her response. Surely then, if he, or anyone else had attacked Liz in Dutfields yard, Deimslitz wife, working two yards away from the scene would have heard something of both the attack, and the response from Liz in a quiet alley!
I believe its time to accept that it would have taken at least two to control any of these women, and that the attack on Liz did not take place in Dutfields yard; she was carried there. The man gripping her upper torso held her under the arms and over the shoulders, this caused the bruising under and over her clavicles by his fingers above the clavicle and the heel of his hand underneath. I stick with every thing I said, the killers were Alchemists. Would you mind if I finish this tomorrow, its time for bed! Best wishes ED> PS As I said before the killers destroyed the volatile chloroform by burning it on the fire before leaving Kellys room. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 08:26 pm | | Ed
I believe its time to accept that it would have taken at least two to control any of these women, and that the attack on Liz did not take place in Dutfields yard
Please explain how we get from Schwartz witnessing an assault on Stride, her being cast down......to two men carrying her body into the yard.
If you've covered it before in a previous poste I appologize, I missed it.
Maybe you could adjust the time-line presented here:
http://www.casebook-productions.org/main.htm
So we understand your 'revised time-line'.
Thanks, Jon
Oh, by the way, the singing & partying inside the W. M. Club may easily have drowned out any screams coming from outside in the alley (Mrs Diemschutz). |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 09:29 pm | | Dear Ed,
I can follow your argument regarding the two men, the chloroform, and the medical clues...
but, these medical clues can be as easily attributed to partial strangulation/garrotting and a single individual...in all the cases!That still leaves open the possibility that there was an accomplice in the vicinity.
However, since you have further evidence to connect two men (or more!) together vis., the alchemical 'cabal'...and thus provide a more comprehensive solution to the events of 1888...
I wait further posts on the matter.
Rosemary |
|
|
|
|
